Blue bloods

[MADXSTER]

Who do you consider Blue Bloods? Are there different tiers? Basketball focused over football? History, NCAA Success & National Championships? Recent success ie since 2000? Have some dropped and others moved up over the decades? Facilities & Money? Top coaches? Fan bases?

Xavier has been moving up over the years but there are some schools that I really don't want to go up against on the recruiting level.

I'm not saying this is an exact list and I could be easily swayed...

For me

Tier I
Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
Arizona

Tier II
Florida -
Indiana - Top Tier??
Louisville
Michigan State
Syracuse
UCLA
UConn - Top Tier?? won NC in 2011 and 2014, has won 4 NC since 1999
Villanova - def moving ^ Top Tier??

Tier III
Georgetown been moving down


Working their way up
Butler
Gonzaga
Xavier
Wisconsin
Baylor

[GoMuskies]

Donnie Wahlberg

[GoMuskies]

Seriously, though, I don't see how you could include Arizona in tier I and not Indiana and Louisville. Either Arizona is tier II (probably the better move), or Louisville and Indiana are tier I. Both are better programs than Arizona.

Also UCLA.

[XUMIOH12]

I'd put Indiana, Louisville, and UCLA in the top tier. Although, i'm not sure I need tiers. I'd say that just these 8 are blue bloods. There are a few others you mentioned that you can make a case for as a blue blood. But, a blue blood should be in a truly elite class as a program.

Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
Arizona
Indiana
UCLA
Louisville

[GoMuskies]

I'd put Indiana, Louisville, and UCLA in the top tier. Although, i'm not sure I need tiers. I'd say that just these 8 are blue bloods. There are a few others you mentioned that you can make a case for as a blue blood. But, a blue blood should be in a truly elite class as a program.

Kentucky
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke
Arizona
Indiana
UCLA
Louisville

One of these is not like the others (hint, it's Arizona).

[XUMIOH12]

Seriously, though, I don't see how you could include Arizona in tier I and not Indiana and Louisville. Either Arizona is tier II (probably the better move), or Louisville and Indiana are tier I. Both are better programs than Arizona.

Also UCLA.

i'd put all 3 in as blue bloods, and that'd be it. no tiers.

[XUMIOH12]

One of these is not like the others (hint, it's Arizona).

i know Arizona is probably borderline as a blue blood program. But, i'm putting them in there. I don't think you could debate against any of the others in there.

[GoMuskies]

I don't think you could debate against any of the others in there.

I think you're underestimating what we do here :), but I agree that the other seven are stone cold locks. The only argument against UCLA is that most of their success happened a long time ago, but even they've been to three Final Fours since Arizona last visited one.

[XUMIOH12]

I think you're underestimating what we do here :), but I agree that the other seven are stone cold locks. The only argument against UCLA is that most of their success happened a long time ago, but even they've been to three Final Fours since Arizona last visited one.

haha very true.

[MADXSTER]

Okay, how about ranking three tiers, 5 in each tier. Good Luck

I agree about Arizona but didn't want to show my west coast bias.

[XUMIOH12]

I think you're underestimating what we do here :), but I agree that the other seven are stone cold locks. The only argument against UCLA is that most of their success happened a long time ago, but even they've been to three Final Fours since Arizona last visited one.

that's true, but in my opinion, historical success is part of what makes a program a blue blood.

Of course that contradicts Arizona being on that list, but for the last 30 years or so, Arizona has been one of the top programs around, regardless of their lack of FFs/NCs.

[XUMIOH12]

Okay, how about ranking three tiers, 5 in each tier. Good Luck

I agree about Arizona but didn't want to show my west coast bias.

I don't think you could limit the "top tier" to just 5 teams. I think there are a clear 7 in the top tier. With Arizona being up for debate.

[XUMIOH12]

Okay, how about ranking three tiers, 5 in each tier. Good Luck

I agree about Arizona but didn't want to show my west coast bias.

if there was a "second tier" - Syracuse, Michigan St, maybe Uconn, maybe Villanova, maybe Georgetown. Hell, you could even make an argument for teams like Oklahoma St, Michigan, Ohio St or Cincinnati (unfortunately), among others

[MADXSTER]

if there was a "second tier" - Syracuse, Michigan St, maybe Uconn, maybe Villanova, maybe Georgetown. Hell, you could even make an argument for teams like Oklahoma St or Cincinnati (unfortunately).

Interesting about UConn since they've won more National Championships than anyone else in the last 20 years yet only a maybe. sidenote: I hate UConn

UConn 4
North Carolina 3
Duke 3
Florida 2
Kentucky 2
Villanova 1
Louisville 1
Kansas 1
Syracuse 1
Michigan State 1
Maryland 1

[Ohionite_X]

Since the year 2000 I would argue that Florida has been a top 3 program behind Duke and UNC. It's crazy how successful that basketball program was under Billy Donovan and seemingly will continue to be under Mike White given that it's a "football school". If I had to pick the ultimate Blue Blood combining both Football and Basketball it would hands down be Florida.

[XUMIOH12]

Interesting about UConn since they've won more National Championships than anyone else in the last 20 years yet only a maybe. sidenote: I hate UConn

UConn 4
North Carolina 3
Duke 3
Florida 2
Kentucky 2
Villanova 1
Louisville 1
Kansas 1
Syracuse 1
Michigan State 1
Maryland 1

I think the big argument against Uconn would be that they weren't really any good until the late 80s-early 90s. I guess it might just depend how much weight you put on NCs.

[XUMIOH12]

Since the year 2000 I would argue that Florida has been a top 3 program behind Duke and UNC. It's crazy how successful that basketball program was under Billy Donovan and seemingly will continue to be under Mike White given that it's a "football school". If I had to pick the ultimate Blue Blood combining both Football and Basketball it would hands down be Florida.

Florida is an interesting one. I would never consider them a blue blood, simply because of the fact that they weren't much of a basketball program until the mid to late 90s.

[MADXSTER]

I'm putting more weight on recent history(last 20 - 25 years). Otherwise yes, you could put UC. I'm also looking at who is in contention to win a NC every year. Georgetown was up there but has fallen so far off the map that they do not deserve to be in the top tier IMO. Hell Butler has done more than Georgetown but at the same time Butler doesn't have the financial backing that Georgetown does.

Indiana has a great history but haven't done much lately. That said, they have everything needed to win a NC except a decent coach and that may have changed.

[MADXSTER]

I think the big argument against Uconn would be that they weren't really any good until the late 80s-early 90s. I guess it might just depend how much weight you put on NCs.

North Carolina, UK, Duke, Kansas have a history of doing well both in the recent past and the distant past. That's why I put them in their own tier.

[LA Muskie]

Seriously, though, I don't see how you could include Arizona in tier I and not Indiana and Louisville. Either Arizona is tier II (probably the better move), or Louisville and Indiana are tier I. Both are better programs than Arizona.

Also UCLA.

I agree. I think that Top Tier is just the first 4.

[LA Muskie]

North Carolina, UK, Duke, Kansas have a history of doing well both in the recent past and the distant past. That's why I put them in their own tier.

I agree. Also, those are the 4 schools that just about no other school can compete with on the recruiting trail (aside from one another) when they choose to make a kid a priority.

[GoMuskies]

North Carolina, UK, Duke, Kansas have a history of doing well both in the recent past and the distant past. That's why I put them in their own tier.

Doesn't Louisville also fit that narrative? I guess their success has never been as spectacular as the others, but they've won 3 titles spaced over 33 years with two different head coaches and have been to 10 Final Fours with three different coaches over the course of 54 years.

[OH.X.MI]

Michigan State is being underappreciated in this conversation if we are limiting it to the last 20 years. Seven final fours, a NC, and runner up since 1997. Arizona doesn't even come close to that.

But would agree that UNC, Duke, UK, and KU are the historic four.

[MADXSTER]

Doesn't Louisville also fit that narrative? I guess their success has never been as spectacular as the others, but they've won 3 titles spaced over 33 years with two different head coaches and have been to 10 Final Fours with three different coaches over the course of 54 years.

To me yes Louisville fits the narrative but not as strongly as the other four. Maybe Kansas. Louisville won 3 titles in 35 years but also was only in the title game 3 times as well. Kansas won 2 but was in the title game 5 times. UK 3 titles and in the title game 5 times. North Carolina 5 titles in 7 title games. Duke 5 titles in 8 title games.

[MADXSTER]

Michigan State is being underappreciated in this conversation if we are limiting it to the last 20 years. Seven final fours, a NC, and runner up since 1997. Arizona doesn't even come close to that.

But would agree that UNC, Duke, UK, and KU are the historic four.

Agree. As stated I was trying not to show my West Coast bias.

[xavierj]

Am I the only person that thinks the name blue bloods, is some cheesy name, made up by some cheese dick, that wants people to think like he knows something?

[JTG]

Am I the only person that thinks the name blue bloods, is some cheesy name, made up by some cheese dick, that wants people to think like he knows something?

Must be you...it's a term that has long been used to connote the upper crust, best of the best in their field. It refers to royal blood being blue. Hence the blue bloods are the royalty of college basketball.

[xavierj]

Must be you...it's a term that has long been used to connote the upper crust, best of the best in their field. It refers to royal blood being blue. Hence the blue bloods are the royalty of college basketball.

I still don't like it. Sounds like a power 5 concoction. I just like, who are the best of the best. You are either good or you are not.

[dnnrobert]

The only blue bloods that are indisputable to me are UK, UCLA, UNC, Duke, and Kansas. Indiana, Louisville, UConn, and Michigan State are up for debate. The rest just haven't done enough or haven't done it long enough.

Not sure why anyone would consider Arizona over UCLA...

Arizona = 1 championship, 4 Final Four appearances, 32 NCAA tournament appearances, and 6 consensus All-American selections
UCLA = 11 championships, 17 Final Four appearances, 46 NCAA tournament appearances, and 20 consensus All-American selections

Not to mention UCLA has had 3 Final Four appearances since the last time Arizona made it and UCLA's most recent championship (1995) is only two years older than Arizona's (1997). It's not even really debatable.

[dnnrobert]

Actually, looking at this list, it would be pretty easy to decide who the blue bloods are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament_bids _by_school

The top 7 schools by NCAA bids are:

1. Kentucky (56)
2. North Carolina (48)
T-3. Kansas (46)
T-3. UCLA (46)
5. Louisville (42)
6. Duke (41)
7. Indiana (39)

Next closest are Villanova and Notre Dame with 36.

All of the top 7 programs listed above have at least 3 national championships and 8 Final Four appearances.

UConn is the only program not in the top 7 with 3 or more championships (they have 4), but they are far behind in Final Four appearances (5) and NCAA tournament bids (32).

Michigan State has 9 Final Four appearances, but only 2 national championships and 31 NCAA tournament bids.

So I'm going to go with those 7 as my blue bloods.

[WCWIII]

Am I the only person that thinks the name blue bloods, is some cheesy name, made up by some cheese dick, that wants people to think like he knows something?

I'll throw some support your way (though this is a fine off season topic).

I make a small cringe whenever I hear "Power 5" and "blue bloods" in the same way as I used to with "mid-major." I'd rather discuss a list of top programs in the last xx years than which programs, by virtue of name recognition first, success second, (and often ignored scandal third), deserve some designation. North Carolina as a blue blood in a pejorative sense comes to mind.

Maybe the "Blue Bloods" would be a good name for the student section (whatever was that decided to be anyway??)

[bleedXblue]

Yeah......we aren't a blue blood or even close to it. I'm just fine with who we are and how we are perceived.....which I think all of college basketball knows how good we have been for the last 30 years. X won't cross over into another level until we crack the Final 4.

[GIMMFD]

Yeah......we aren't a blue blood or even close to it. I'm just fine with who we are and how we are perceived.....which I think all of college basketball knows how good we have been for the last 30 years. X won't cross over into another level until we crack the Final 4.

I think a Final 4 wouldn't necessarily jump us up yet, though it would be a start. I think we need a couple Final Four's to hit the next group of programs, though I think we're still on the cusp. We just quite aren't a household name, and I'm totally fine with that. Break down the mold and let's hit the next level, but until then I'm very happy with our program. We're on the rise, it's the calm before the storm to the casual viewer.

[dnnrobert]

I think a Final 4 wouldn't necessarily jump us up yet, though it would be a start. I think we need a couple Final Four's to hit the next group of programs, though I think we're still on the cusp. We just quite aren't a household name, and I'm totally fine with that. Break down the mold and let's hit the next level, but until then I'm very happy with our program. We're on the rise, it's the calm before the storm to the casual viewer.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Unless you're a select handful of programs, recruits don't really care about what you did in the distant past. It's all about the present.